GR L 11325; (December, 1917) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-11325, December 7, 1917
MONICO G. ROLDAN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. LIM PONZO & CO., defendant-appellee.
FACTS:
Monico G. Roldan filed an action to recover damages from Lim Ponzo & Co. for its alleged failure to fulfill a contract of carriage involving 2,244 packages of sugar from Roldan’s hacienda to Iloilo. The defendant admitted the contract and receipt of the sugar but asserted that a portion was lost due to a wreck of its lorcha in the Jalaud River, without fault on its part. Of the 2,244 packages, only 1,022 were saved, albeit in a damaged condition. During trial, after the plaintiff presented evidence tending to show negligence by the vessel’s master, the trial judge dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with Article 366 of the Code of Commerce, which requires a claim for damages to be filed within 24 hours after receipt of the goods.
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint based on the plaintiff’s non-compliance with Article 366 of the Code of Commerce.
RULING:
Yes, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court held that Article 366 of the Code of Commerce applies only to cases where the carrier has delivered the goods to the consignee and a claim is made for damages apparent upon delivery or after opening the packages. It does not apply where, as here, the carrier fails to deliver the goods entirely. For the undelivered 1,222 packages, the claim arises from non-delivery, not from damaged delivery, so Article 366 is inapplicable.
Regarding the 1,022 packages that were saved but damaged, the Court ruled that Article 366 would only bar a claim if those packages were formally delivered by the carrier and received by the consignee under the contract. If, as alleged, the plaintiff recovered these packages himself from the wreck, the requirement of a claim under Article 366 does not arise. Since the defendant had not yet presented its evidence, the factual circumstances surrounding the recovery of the saved sugar remained unresolved.
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial on all issues, allowing both parties to submit additional evidence. No costs were awarded.
This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.